The OP is actually a very interesting question when you consider what more people choose to say with the cover of some anonymity. It turns out in many cases telling it like it is doesn't reveal some greater truth but rather turtles/dumbshittery all the way down.
There is truth here. I think the appeal is more than anonymity. Lots of social psychology data show the same kinds of things. For example, when someone is brutalized with a single witness, that single witness often intervenes. When it happens in a crowd of people, very often people don't. It is much easier to fallaciously support your own identity when you perceive that the responsibility for warding off threats to this identity lies in an external entity (the group).
Personally, I don't care about anonymity here. I am happy to provide more transparency about my life and my identity. Were it not for real risks (patients and employees google, identity theft, etc.), I would put identifying information in my signature.
-----
To the OP's question, though, I think
@Moonbeam and I would end up in a corner talking about increasingly abstract ideas until the absinthe had convinced us that we had transcended thought altogether, after which we would meander the room trying to Vulcan mind-meld everyone.
-----
Also, if this were a reality and it were in reasonable geographic range of me (southeastern US), I would attend.